Matthieu Moy [off-list ref] writes:
Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Matthieu Moy [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Was that obtained from the upstream project (i.e. you) and match
your 1.0.2 tag?
Yes. Isn't that what the text above says?
Well, the patch does not update git_multimail.py at all. Requoting
the part you omitted from my response
$ git rev-list -1 master contrib/hooks/multimail/
b513f71f6043c05c3918e670b332dfa7ec6b2661
which is b513f71f (git-multimail: update to version 1.0.0,
2014-04-07)
it matches what "was obtained from the upstream project on
2014-04-07".
Yes, but it also matches "was obtained on 2015-04-27", since only the
README has changed (the commit message of this patch says: "The only
changes are to the README files, most notably the list of maintainers
and the project URL.").
quoted
Or did you forget to include the update to the software in the
patch?
The update to the software is empty.
Hmm, that may be technically correct but it is grossly misleading to
update the existing "was obtained on 2014-04-07" to "was obtained on
2015-04-27", especially if nothing was actually obtained, isn't it?
I honestly am surprised that, after seeing the announcement about "a
new repository, co-maintainer and multiple contributors", no code
change is made over the past 12 months.
I would understand it if the description were "The version in this
directory matches the upstream project as of 2015-04-27", though.
On 04/27/2015 09:05 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Matthieu Moy [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:
[...]
quoted
Well, the patch does not update git_multimail.py at all. Requoting
the part you omitted from my response
$ git rev-list -1 master contrib/hooks/multimail/
b513f71f6043c05c3918e670b332dfa7ec6b2661
which is b513f71f (git-multimail: update to version 1.0.0,
2014-04-07)
it matches what "was obtained from the upstream project on
2014-04-07".
Yes, but it also matches "was obtained on 2015-04-27", since only the
README has changed (the commit message of this patch says: "The only
changes are to the README files, most notably the list of maintainers
and the project URL.").
quoted
Or did you forget to include the update to the software in the
patch?
The update to the software is empty.
Hmm, that may be technically correct but it is grossly misleading to
update the existing "was obtained on 2014-04-07" to "was obtained on
2015-04-27", especially if nothing was actually obtained, isn't it?
I'm sorry to have caused confusion. Matthieu, your explanations have
been exactly correct. Let me just add a couple of details:
Junio, you asked me (off-list) for an update to README and README.Git.
Those two files come from the git-multimail repo, as
git-multimail/README and git-multimail/README.Git.template,
respectively, so I modified the files in our repo then submitted the
corresponding patch to your repo.
It's true that only documentation changes are in the patch, but it still
seemed like good practice to create a tag and all that. If nothing else,
it will make it easier to figure out the baseline for future code drops.
There have been a couple of small software changes in git-multimail's
master branch, but I didn't include those in the patch I submitted to
you because I thought you wouldn't want to have code changes so close to
the release. So 1.0.2 is on the newly-created "maint" branch.
I honestly am surprised that, after seeing the announcement about "a
new repository, co-maintainer and multiple contributors", no code
change is made over the past 12 months.
I totally understand your disappointment. Mea culpa. That, in fact, is
WHY I'm so happy that Matthieu has agreed to help maintain the project.
If it's any consolation, none of the user feedback that I have been so
remiss in addressing involves serious or security-related bugs.
I would understand it if the description were "The version in this
directory matches the upstream project as of 2015-04-27", though.
I think of the contents of contrib/hooks/multimail as a whole, so even
if the software hasn't changed, updated documentation *has* been
"obtained" from upstream. But feel free to adjust the text in whatever
way you like.
Michael
--
Michael Haggerty
mhagger@alum.mit.edu